http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
On July 1, Oakland took possession of two properties that housed
two viable businesses  Revelli Tires and Autohouse, which provided the
livelihoods of John Revelli and Tony Fung  by eminent domain so that a
private developer can build apartments in the redevelopment zone.

On Aug. 1, Oakland took possession a parking lot about one block
away  on which owner Alex Hahn says he wants to build housing  so that
Sears can relocate its Auto Center on that lot.

If you had to re-read the above paragraph, it is because this
story makes no sense. Oakland, you see, is using government's supreme
power  the ability to seize citizens' private property  so that
bureaucrats can trade years of sweat and dreams as if they were property
cards for a Monopoly game board. Except Oakland pols view all properties as
if they are inexpensive purple ones, Baltic and Mediterranean.

"When my clients first contacted me with this story, I didn't
believe them," wrote attorney Wallace Smith, who represents Hahn, in an
e-mail to me. But it's true. Oakland used its big-gun power to take property
for public use  and in this case, the public use was giving the land to
Sears. Director of Redevelopment Dan Vanderpriem told the City Council in
October that the city needed other land owned by Sears. In order to get it
without exercising eminent domain, the city agreed to find a lot that would
allow Sears to relocate its Auto Store within a block of the main store. So
Oakland used eminent domain on Hahn.

Don't expect the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn this scheme. In
June, the Big Bench issued a 5-4 ruling that affirmed government's right to
treat economic development as a "public use" that would justify government
takings (the Kelo case).

That decision sparked public outrage. Now, liberals and
conservatives are working on state laws to limit "public use" to, well,
public use  that is, roads, transit lines and other infrastructure
projects.

Meanwhile, Oakland is operating in the pre-Kelo era, when cities
grabbed what they wanted and no one paid much attention. A tape of a
November City Council meeting, before the council voted 6-1 to seize these
properties, tells the story. Fung, Revelli and Hahn protested that the city
didn't need to seize their land. (Oops, Vanderpriem doesn't like the word
"seize.")

They don't believe the replacement projects  apartments built
by another developer  qualify as public use. The Oakland Three also said
they were not offered either enough money or a good relocation option. The
City Council then voted 6-1 to take their property.

It's not for me to say whether the city offered a good deal or
not. Be it noted, however, that because their properties aren't blighted,
they should be able to say "no" to the city. And you have to figure these
entrepreneurs would grab a good deal rather than pay private lawyers to
fight the government's better-financed lawyers.

Former Oakland Councilman Danny Wan made a good point. He noted
Oakland's strong interest in keeping Sears in Oakland. If Sears ever leaves
Oakland, blight will move in, and everyone loses.

Then Wan scoffed at Fung, Hahn and Revelli for having benefited
from redevelopment efforts. That's right, they risked their capital buying
in downtown Oakland, then they made a profit  and for that they earned a
city pol's contempt.

Councilman Larry Reid, the lone "no" vote, noted, "There is no
public benefit for the taking of the Hahn's property other than to
accommodate Sears." Reid added that if he were a judge, he'd likely rule
against what Oakland redevelopers were doing. (Both sides agree that if this
goes to court, legal bills will approach $200,000.) Reid also talked about
what, as a student, he thought government should do: It was "our
responsibility to make sure that those businesses"  those that exist, and
might exist  "have a right to exist and to thrive."

Tell that to the rest of City Hall. Mayor Jerry Brown called me
Wednesday to repeat his pledge to take care of the Oakland Three. The goal
of these projects, he noted, isn't to throw people off their land, but to
renew a blighted city. And: "We're helping little people get into a house."

Vanderpriem of the redevelopment agency struck the same note
when he stressed, "We do everything we can to avoid using eminent domain. We
have to work face-to-face with people for years."

Vanderpriem also told me that the city offered the Oakland Three
$80 per square foot, which is $10 less per square foot than Sears got.
Wallace said Sears can settle for $90 per square foot for because it will
get Hahn's land  which is worth "substantially more" than the city offer.

For their part, city solons wonder if columns like mine will
jack up the price of what the city has to pay to complete a project that is
supposed to revitalize downtown Oakland.

Of course, if that happens, it will be in part because in the
pre-Kelo world, the city failed to think about the rights of good citizens
who don't want to sell. They didn't try to accommodate their own
constituents as much as a private developer would have to bend to
accommodate red-legged frogs and endangered snakes.

In the post-Kelo environment, governments are going to have to
increase their respect for homeowners and business owners.

One redeveloper noted that redevelopment is a wonderful tool
where cities take from a few people and make life better for everyone.

Another word for that scheme is: communism. In a free country,
where individual rights are supposed to be paramount, a city can revitalize
itself without seizing the land of dissenting law-abiding taxpayers.

And if it can't, it has no concept of what it means to represent
citizens.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.